It is one thing to plead the Fifth Amendment and make no statement to police at all, it is quite another to deliberately mislead police by making a statement that omits material information. In People v Williams, No. 330853, the Court of Appeals held that a person who withholds material information in the course of making a statement to police during a criminal investigation runs the risk of being charged with a felony under MCL 750.479c. This provision makes it a felony to “[k]nowingly and willfully make any statement to [a] peace office [sic] that the person knows is false or misleading regarding a material fact in [a] criminal investigation.” In this case, Jamari Williams said he and two friends were riding in a car the night of his pregnant girlfriend’s murder and divulged the stops they had made, but the police later found evidence that the car had parked briefly at her apartment—a stop Williams had not disclosed—and Williams later admitted that a fourth person was in the car. This was sufficient to bind over the defendant for trial on the charge of misleading an officer. Read More

Despite a series of inconsistent opinions throughout the years, in Lakin v Rund, No. 323695, the Court of Appeals adhered to Taylor v Kneeland, 1 Doug 67, 72 (1843), in clarifying what types of crimes were actionable in a defamation per se action. The Court concluded that a false accusation of simple battery would only constitute defamation per se if the crime of battery subjects a plaintiff to an “infamous punishment,” which the Court concluded it did not. Read More

In State Treasurer v. Bences, No. 327657, the Court of Appeals held that a crime victim’s restitution order does not create a perfected interest in a claim under the State Correctional Facility Reimbursement Act (“SCFRA”). Because the restitution order does not take priority over the Treasury’s SCFRA claim, the victim cannot intervene in the suit. Read More

When a senior mortgage is discharged and replaced with a new mortgage, and the junior mortgagee conditions its own discharge and replacement on no new money being lent and recordation of the replacement mortgage, then the new senior mortgage does not retain its priority position with respect to the excess, said the Michigan Court of Appeals in Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. SBC IV REO, LLC and Capital National Bank, No. 328186. The court refused to apply the doctrine of equitable subrogation, which in a quiet-title action places a new mortgage in the same priority as the discharged mortgage if the identity of the mortgagee remains the same and the junior lienholders are not prejudiced, to the amount over and above the loan amount secured by the original senior mortgage. Read More

In Petersen Financial LLC v. Twin Creeks, Nos. 329019 and 329622, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court orders in favor of defendants on plaintiff’s claim for slander of title and tortious interference with business expectancy (No 329019); and in favor of plaintiff regarding quiet title, specifically, that certain deed restrictions do not apply to their property (No. 329622). Read More

In Department Of Environmental Quality v. Hernan F Gomez, No. 328033, the Court of Appeals held that the Defendants’ filling activities on their wetland property were prohibited and were not considered farming activities. Accordingly, because Defendants did not acquire a permit prior to filling in a wetland area, they violated the National Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA). Read More

A company in the business of producing and installing custom office furnishings and interior finishes is a contractor liable for use tax, and not a retailer liable only for sales tax, said the Michigan Court of Appeals in Brunt Associates, Inc. v. Department of Treasury, No. 328253. Further, it is not an industrial processor entitled to an exemption under the Use Tax Act (UTA). Ultimately such a company affixes its product to real estate for its customers, no matter how unobtrusive the hardware used to attach its products is or how easily those products may be removed.Read More

Personal insurance protection (PIP) benefits under the Michigan No-Fault Act, MCL 500.3101 et. seq., may be recovered by a party injured in a motor vehicle accident, who had the owner’s permission to take the vehicle even though the owner knew that such party’s use of the vehicle would be unlawful. Read More

NOTICE. Although we would like to hear from you, we cannot represent you until we know that doing so will not create a conflict of interest. Also, we cannot treat unsolicited information as confidential. Accordingly, please do not send us any information about any matter that may involve you until you receive a written statement from us that we represent you.

By clicking the ‘ACCEPT’ button, you agree that we may review any information you transmit to us. You recognize that our review of your information, even if you submitted it in a good faith effort to retain us, and even if you consider it confidential, does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could and will be used against you.

Please click the ‘ACCEPT’ button if you understand and accept the foregoing statement and wish to proceed.